Following the jury's verdict in the second Apple vs Samsung trial, which found infringement in three of the five patents Apple argued, the company issued a statement thanking the jury and suggesting a continued fight to defend the company's innovative products.

"We are grateful to the jury and the court for their service," Apple stated to the media. "Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products.

"We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers."

Jury to correct infringement royalty error on older Samsung phone

Apple won infringement claims involving both its Slide to Unlock and Apple Data Detectors patents, but lost its arguments involving background sync and Universal Search, the patent it was seeking the highest royalties from, and which involved an indemnification for Samsung by search giant Google.

The three out of five verdict is only a minor win for Apple, but the three patents effectively amount to a $6.40 royalty per unit among the devices found infringing. The majority of the damages were accrued by Samsung's Galaxy SIII flagship, which introduced in May 2012.

Galaxy S3 the big hit, $52 million of the total. No damages for Galaxy tab.

The jury is being retained to reconsider their decision to award Apple $0 in royalties for the even older Galaxy SII, which the presiding Judge Lucy Koh determined was not appropriate, noting that the device should either be found non-infringing, or should involve a reasonable royalty.

Apple had earlier sought to also add Samsung's newer, top selling Galaxy S4 to the lawsuit, but was prevented from doing so by Judge Koh due to limited timing. However, both it and its Galaxy S5 predecessor also infringe the data detectors patent, meaning Apple should be able to expand Samsung's total liability.

Judge Koh hasn't yet ruled on whether Apple will be able to expand the current damages due to willful infringement, or whether she would allow a sales ban on the infringing GS3 or substantially similar devices, including the GS4 and GS5. Such a ban would have catastrophic consequences for Samsung, even if it were imposed only temporarily.

The same judge decided not to impose a sales ban in the first trial, even after Samsung was found infringing, because she said she had not been convinced that the damage to Apple by the infringement warranted more than monetary damages.

Apple previously won an injunction in a different venue--the U.S. International Trade Commission--over the same Data Detectors patent against HTC, which subsequently struggled with removing the feature throughout 2012 before it decided to instead agree to a licensing agreement with Apple.

Apple was also recently cleared to again argue its Data Detectors patent against Motorola, nearly two years after that parallel case had been delayed by Judge Richard Posner's opinion from the summer of 2012, which dismissed it along with all of other claims Apple and Google had presented.

"We are grateful to the jury and the court for their service," Apple stated to the media. "Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products.

"We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers."

Google has only lost money on Android. Why would Apple go after Google for damages?

Samsung made billions, and Apple wanted to besmirch its "next big thing" hubris.

Now Apple has won two landmark cases, and has a portfolio of patents it can use to leverage licensing agreements.

It's not like Apple needs revenue from anyone over legal action. It just earned +$10B in quarterly profits.

What portfolio? You mean those design patents in the first case that has nothing to do with core android and which only dealt with Samsung skin in android and nothing else? Apple can't sue Sony, lg, with its designed patents. What made that case was the Samsung documents. That first case had nothing to do with android.

This case apple had 3 patents with real teeth. Data links, background scan, and universal search. Only data linking survived. And that patent with a combination of it about to expire, court rullings stripping it if its value, and it being challenged it close to useless.

This patent war has done nothing to stop android. And this last case was a disaster for apple.

There is nothing apple can threaten android OEMS with. First case only applied specifically to Samsung, and this case really showed how weak apple patents are. Not to mention outside the U.S Apple has even more worthless patents.

What portfolio? You mean those design patents in the first case that has nothing to do with core android and which only dealt with Samsung skin in android and nothing else? Apple can't sue Sony, lg, with its designed patents. What made that case was the Samsung documents. That first case had nothing to do with android.

This case apple had 3 patents with real teeth. Data links, background scan, and universal search. Only data linking survived. And that patent with a combination of it about to expire, court rullings stripping it if its value, and it being challenged it close to useless.

This patent war has done nothing to stop android. And this last case was a disaster for apple.

There is nothing apple can threaten android OEMS with. First case only applied specifically to Samsung, and this case really showed how weak apple patents are. Not to mention outside the U.S Apple has even more worthless patents.

Stop reaching ded

Well, in the interest of being complete, Apple began this case with, if I recall correctly, 14 patents it intended to litigate. But the court required both sides to reduce the number of patents for this trial in order to streamline the trial and not unduly burden the jurors with a longer trial. So Apple will be back with the other nine patents, plus others that it held back when deciding on the 14 it intended for this trial.

Next issue. Apple may get triple damages on this trial's award. That's still to be decided. Plus, as DED indicated, it will pursue additional Samsung phone models - ones that sold in higher volumes - now that it has won this round. And finally, the jury needs to go back and make a decision regarding the earlier model DED mentioned. So the base amount could oh up, and up again when extended to cover the S4, etc, and then triple on punitive damages for willful infringement.

Next issue. The award in the first trial was spread across several design patents plus one utility patent. Apple will wait for the appeal to be over and, if it is still victorious, it will then seek damages on those patents for newer models that didn't even exist at the time of the 2012 trial.

Apple is nowhere near done with Samsung on this matter.

I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.

What portfolio? You mean those design patents in the first case that has nothing to do with core android and which only dealt with Samsung skin in android and nothing else? Apple can't sue Sony, lg, with its designed patents. What made that case was the Samsung documents. That first case had nothing to do with android.

This case apple had 3 patents with real teeth. Data links, background scan, and universal search. Only data linking survived. And that patent with a combination of it about to expire, court rullings stripping it if its value, and it being challenged it close to useless.

This patent war has done nothing to stop android. And this last case was a disaster for apple.

There is nothing apple can threaten android OEMS with. First case only applied specifically to Samsung, and this case really showed how weak apple patents are. Not to mention outside the U.S Apple has even more worthless patents.

Stop reaching ded

Apple is threatening Android OEMs pretty intensely with its ability to earn $10 billion per quarter, mostly from phones that sell for 3x the average price of what those OEMs can ship at razor thin margins. That's where Apple is competing.

If Apple needs more leverage for forcing Android OEMs to sign licensing agreements, it has dozens of additional patents that it can bring. It hasn't even yet had the opportunity to accuse phones from a year ago on the patents it has already won. It has dozens of patents to bring to court and force Samsung ect. to pay millions of dollars to experts to deny while looking like a scoundrel.

A bigger threat to Android comes from Samsung however, which is stomping on Android OEMs with its marketing muscle and plans to migrate its users off Android as soon as it can.

Spot on. Further to this, and the whole "Google losing money on Android" line.. it doesn't take much to see Google's strategy; give out Android for free, gain significant market share whilst revenue is supported by other streams then finally refine the product to increase ad revenue without sacrificing useability. Google's strategy is working to a tee. Further more, the ad revenue from iOS is again mostly from web surfing - lot of these ad's pay Google, not Apple.

That plan has failed because Android failed to attract a demographic similar to iOS. Sure there is some residual money in advertising to poor people, but the real money is on iOS.

That's why Google aimed its initial Nexus phones directly at iPhone and its Honeycomb tablets 20% above the price of iPad. It thought it had a shot of replicating iOS the way Windows ravaged Macs.

It failed. By 2013 it was trying to introduce free hardware; zero profit Nexus 7 & Moto X and Moto G devices that were priced so low it was losing hundreds of millions of dollars (just in the last six months!) on hardware.

Apple is threatening Android OEMs pretty intensely with its ability to earn $10 billion per quarter, mostly from phones that sell for 3x the average price of what those OEMs can ship at razor thin margins. That's where Apple is competing.

If Apple needs more leverage for forcing Android OEMs to sign licensing agreements, it has dozens of additional patents that it can bring. It hasn't even yet had the opportunity to accuse phones from a year ago on the patents it has already won. It has dozens of patents to bring to court and force Samsung ect. to pay millions of dollars to experts to deny while looking like a scoundrel.

A bigger threat to Android comes from Samsung however, which is stomping on Android OEMs with its marketing muscle and plans to migrate its users off Android as soon as it can.

Stop moving the goal post we are talking about litigation threats.

Yes Samsung will dump android, like you predicted Google would move off android due to patent issues? Yet all rumors point to Google going full in with android wear, android TV, and android silver.

That plan has failed because Android failed to attract a demographic similar to iOS. Sure there is some residual money in advertising to poor people, but the real money is on iOS.

That's why Google aimed its initial Nexus phones directly at iPhone and its Honeycomb tablets 20% above the price of iPad. It thought it had a shot of replicating iOS the way Windows ravaged Macs.

It failed. By 2013 it was trying to introduce free hardware; zero profit Nexus 7 & Moto X and Moto G devices that were priced so low it was losing hundreds of millions of dollars (just in the last six months!) on hardware.

Google does earn ad revenues from both Android and iOS, but relative to its historical rates from PC web users, it makes nearly nothing.

Apple used to make relatively nothing on hardware sales. But its transition to mobile turned it into the world's largest and most valuable tech company.

I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.

My clicking on an add in the U.S allows Google to make money and keep that YouTube server running with some kid learning about gravity from a YouTube video. Internet advertising the best from of socialism there is.

I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.

My clicking on an add in the U.S allows Google to make money and keep that YouTube server running with some kid learning about gravity from a YouTube video. Internet advertising the best from of socialism there is.

You seem to have turn this into apple makes more money than Google pissing contest. You are the definition of a rabid fanboy. I appreciate both technology companies for what they do and how they do it.

In what way has Apple ever threatened the ability of poor people to stream YouTube ad-videos?

Companies can do all the things you describe without stealing Apple tech, presenting it as their own and refusing to pay for it.

In what way has Apple ever threatened the ability of poor people to stream YouTube ad-videos?

Companies can do all the things you describe without stealing Apple tech, presenting it as their own and refusing to pay for it.

Samsung doesn't need to steal in order to produce low cost phones.

Never said Apple threaten anything. You seem to have a distace for the poor buying android and are gleeful about Google not being able to monetize the poor because that means the death if their mobile advertising business.

I find Samsung to be a shameless company with few positive qualities. I actually wanted them to get punish more during the first trial. I just happen to have a different view on software patents, especially the crap ones apple used in this tral. I'm happy to see software patents being devalued, and hopefully a system is put in place that deals with software in a more nuanced way.

That plan has failed because Android failed to attract a demographic similar to iOS. Sure there is some residual money in advertising to poor people, but the real money is on iOS.

That's why Google aimed its initial Nexus phones directly at iPhone and its Honeycomb tablets 20% above the price of iPad. It thought it had a shot of replicating iOS the way Windows ravaged Macs.

It failed. By 2013 it was trying to introduce free hardware; zero profit Nexus 7 & Moto X and Moto G devices that were priced so low it was losing hundreds of millions of dollars (just in the last six months!) on hardware.

If you read that garbage article, you'll find out what it actually says.

Hint: the click bait title has nothing to do with the nugget of garbage that Business Insider constructed the piece upon.

The short answer is that it some analytics firm is saying more ads will be shown to Android users. The fact that there is any "revenue ad gap" between the supposedly 80% of Android and iOS should tell you something is already wrong with their creative wordplay.

I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.

My clicking on an add in the U.S allows Google to make money and keep that YouTube server running with some kid learning about gravity from a YouTube video. Internet advertising the best from of socialism there is.

You seem to have turn this into apple makes more money than Google pissing contest. You are the definition of a rabid fanboy. I appreciate both technology companies for what they do and how they do it.

You can use iTunes U and apparently MIT have all their courses available online.

No need for Google Ad dollars at all.

How much does data cost in Haiti?

No point in wasting hundreds on a phone without a reliable network.

Why wouldn't these people get something in the sub $50 range from a Chinese OEM?Edited by hill60 - 5/2/14 at 9:34pm

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

If you read that garbage article, you'll find out what it actually says.

Hint: the click bait title has nothing to do with the nugget of garbage that Business Insider constructed the piece upon.

The short answer is that it some analytics firm is saying more ads will be shown to Android users. The fact that there is any "revenue ad gap" between the supposedly 80% of Android and iOS should tell you something is already wrong with their creative wordplay.

No, according to that analytics firm more ads are *already* being shown to Android users.

The thrust of the article is about monetization, not just ad impressions:

"New data shows that in addition to overtaking Apple’s mobile market share, Android is also catching up in terms of its share of mobile revenue....While Apple is still ahead in the monetization of those users, its lead is shrinking there also...Opera CEO Mahi de Silva believes Android will catch Apple by the end of the year"

The thrust of the article is about monetization, not just ad impressions:

"New data shows that in addition to overtaking Apple’s mobile market share, Android is also catching up in terms of its share of mobile revenue....While Apple is still ahead in the monetization of those users, its lead is shrinking there also...Opera CEO Mahi de Silva believes Android will catch Apple by the end of the year"

Where's the amounts? Ad monetization of apps is not where "mobile revenue" is coming from, unless you Opera and have no part of the world's largest market for consumer electronics hardware.

The bottom line is that you and the other readers of this "Business Insider" garbage puff piece were confused by creatively worded nonsense.

The thing with these trials is that Apple has to constantly limit the scope to just a handful of patents. Apple has hundreds of iPhone patents, both software, hardware and combination. Apple chooses these very simple patents -- but which are very recognizable to people -- in trials, and yet they come out victorious.

I believe Apple has many more stronger patents, a combination of both software and hardware. A handful of patents is already worth $100 million. Then the dozens of more Apple has are worth billions. That's what I don't hear in the media. It's always, these patents are not worth much. Yeah, but if you do the math, the patents not brought into trial are worth how much?

In the end, though, Apple is simply forced to license their patents, even if they don't want to. In effect, Apple constantly creates what is to become almost standard essential patents.

PATENTS LAST 21 years so I really doubt any patent apple has on the iPhone or iOS is about to expire
Samsung's skin specifically set out to copy apples UI. If that is copyright protected as a design or as source code then that protection will last 50 years after the death of the owner of the copyright.
If Google gave used source code that hold a significant chuck of code similar to Apple's then I would expect the same ruling on that as if you were to copy out of a copyrighted book and call it you own work. Even photocopying a book is strictly controlled by law to a percentage in single figures
It appears to me that people have forgotten about the basics of the IP laws we have. I'm not a solicitor but I do remember the basic IP stuff i was taught at Uni. A design patent if memory serves correctly is somewhere between a normal patent and copyright and does cover both the look and feel of a device

If Samsung have been shown to have wilfully infringed any patents apple Developed themselves (rather than purchased like Samsung) then the damages should be putative enough to make them think twice before doing anything like this again. what apple has made is irrelevant if the US legal system was for filling its purpose of stopping IP infringement the the penalty should fit the crime. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT MEANS SAMSUNG KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND SET OUT TO DO IT ANYWAY. This judgement does very little to deter them from doing it to Apple or anyone else for that matter. Hence after this I would be very worried if I were Microsoft or any other tech company that may come up with a UI or device the market finds it likes as Samsung will now just think it can WILLFULLY copy that too. it's easy to change a whole UI if you don't have to design it in the first place and let others go through the hard work of finding out what works and what doesn't.

So let me be clear. THIS IS NOT A WIN FOR APPLE IT IS A LOSS FOR THE ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY AS SERIAL IP INFRINGERSVCAN NOW USE THIS AS A BENCHMARK CASE, AND WILL.